OI! Homophobes! Over here!

[ooojimaflip]

I'm genuinly interested in why you object to homosexuality, and everytime I ask on the other thread it gets lost in the general hubbub.

So - name change if you want, but please tell me what your objections are?

If it's because it's not natural or against biology, please expand your answer to include why you care about that.

Show your working for extra credit.

n.b. Don't bother if it's a religous justification, you'll need to find someone who believes in that kind of stuff to debate with as I'll just dismiss that out of hand. If you are a homopohbic religous person with a secular objection then please go ahead.

Well DP if homosexuality is unnatural then how can one consider IVF and transplants to be natural?

DP, what makes one unnatural thing i.e. concieving via IVF more/less acceptable than another 'unnatural' thing like homosexuality?

I don't think I'm homophobic (I'd like to think not) but I have been grappling with some thorny issues around it on this thread - centering around monogomy (and otherwise) in gay men.

What are your thoughts oojimaflip?

transplants are there to preserve life...

shagging someone of the same sex is not available on the NHS as a life saving operation...

well you could say that about a lot of threads daftpunk

mores the pity DP!

That makes absolutely no sense DP,but I'm accustomed to such you spouting such nonsenical statements.

I'm not arguing about the purpose of transplants. I think we're all very aware of that, but what I am arguing about is that they are unnatural.
Surely it is far more natural to pass away when one's body is no longer able to function as it should,yet we try to prevent that by giving such patients transplants, because what is 'natural' isn't always preferable or superior.

That should be I'm accustomed to you spouting such nonsensical statements. I evidently haven't had enough chocolate today.

Has anyone else read this whole thread with the readiNg voice in their head saying 'homophobe' in a welsh accent ala 'little britain?'

Unfortunatly I'm not a homophobe so can't start any interesting debate, in fact i'd quite like a bit of fanny

'Heterosexual sex exists for a reason - to procreate.The same can't be said of homosexuality.'

sex is only for babies then, not for pleasure?

the pleasure in sex is only there to make us want to do it to procreate.

Daftpunk - so what ARE your reasons for opposing homosexuality? You may have said this before but I have missed it if so.

I really am interested - I haven't seen anyone give any reasons yet.

YummyMummy - do you use birth control? Yes? Then your sex is purely for pleasure. Just like homosexual sex.

DP - IVF doesn't save lives, nor does artifically grown fruit, cars, etc. Are they all wrong? No? Why then are they more accpetable than being gay?

gayness is a 'sin'?

Religion is totally barmy, isnt it?

'the pleasure in sex is only there to make us want to do it to procreate.'

I do not agree with that. Sex is there for a loving couple to share that love physically. As well as a way of reproduction.

I've given up on catholocism for precisly this reason.

The question of whether or not sex is just for procreation is a religous one, so not something I can discuss.

I haven't seen the animal behaviour/biology argument put forward by someone other than people roleplaying the position. If someone does hold this opinion can they explain why it matters what animals do/what human bodies evolved to do?

I have not once said that being gay was 'unnatural' because i fully believe some men tend towards other men and some women would go more towards women... just to put that out there along side my beliefs.

Most animals don't enjoy sex (well the females don't). They send out physical signals of ovulation then get raped by the male animals, essentially. I mean I know they make themselves available but they are acting on biological impulse to get impregnated.

Humans have evolved to be much better than most animals. There are specieses (?) where the females enjoy sex and they tend to be the more bisexual ones, like some primates. Human females could easily be raped by males to get pregnant but we don't function that way. There is no need to entice female animals to have sex as they can be forced by males so that's a bit of a silly argument. Human females enjoy sex cos we have evolved with this wonderful thing called a clitoris. I don't really care why we have it but it would be a sin not to use it as much as possible

Melted, just to reinforce what I'm sure other people have said - it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and yet completely believe that it is ok to be gay (and have sex, in a committed relationship). Loads and loads and loads of Christians believe this. (And obviously loads of other ones don't!)

LeninGrotto (and MillyR) - thank you for that, it's very interesting

I still find myself in the group mentioned in the last paragraph though - I don't see that it MATTERS. Would still like someone to explain why if it could be shown that homosexuality IS unnatural, that would be a reason for anyone to alter their behaviour.

No it doesn't Lenin.

'intended to be' = what God intended us to be

My above post said that I didn't think it was 'unnatural' for a man to tend towards men more than women. I know a few men who certainly would tend more one was than the other.